Mary Rose Wilcox wants to screw the taxpayers out of $975,000
SourceWilcox asks judge to enforce settlement agreement
by Michelle Ye Hee Lee and Michael Kiefer - Apr. 23, 2012 09:12 PM
The Republic | azcentral.com
Attorneys for Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox on Monday filed a motion asking U.S. District Court Judge Neil Wake to enforce the $975,000 settlement agreement reached with a mediator for the county.
This month, Maricopa County Manager David Smith reached an agreement on the settlement amount based on legal and cost analysis by retired Judge Christopher Skelly, who acted as a mediator for the county. Skelly had determined that Wilcox's settlement would be less costly than litigating it in court.
A June 2010 resolution approved by the county Board of Supervisors gave Smith authority to negotiate settlements relating to legal claims in longstanding disputes between county officials and former County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
Last week, Smith told The Arizona Republic that he had finished what he was supposed to do according to the resolution, and "if there is more work to be done, then it's not my responsibility to do that. ... I just took it as far as I can. What happens next is up to the rest of the players."
Under Arizona law, claims made by a county supervisor against the county must be approved by at least one other supervisor and the county treasurer. County Attorney Bill Montgomery has said that statute applies to legal claims.
But Wilcox's attorneys disagree. In the filing, they said the statute does not apply to this case because Skelly had confirmed the settlement in an e-mail to Colin Campbell, an attorney for Wilcox. The e-mail was then forwarded to Smith and "all parties to the e-mail believed that the agreement was final and binding," according to the motion.
On Monday, Montgomery stood by his opinion, saying the board resolution does not override state law. "There was a legitimate delegation of authority (to the county manager) to reach a settlement. What needs to happen next is that settlement needs to be signed off by a supervisor and the treasurer," he said.
Supervisors Max Wilson, Andy Kunasek and Fulton Brock could sign the settlement. Wilcox and Supervisor Don Stapley, who are suing the county claiming damages from investigations by Thomas and Arpaio, have conflicts of interest. Wilson and Kunasek have said they would not agree to the settlement. Brock and County Treasurer Charles "Hos" Hoskins have not decided.
Two words for why Wilcox windfall should be rejected: Ray Krone
SourceTwo words for why Wilcox windfall should be rejected: Ray Krone
Over the last few weeks, I’ve heard several reasons why we should hand over nearly a million bucks to one of our longest serving leaders, Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox.
Those are those who say it’s our fault that Sheriff Joe Arpaio and former County Attorney Andrew Thomas went rogue and targeted county officials and judges. Indeed, we elected the lot of them – politicians on both sides of the county wars -- and so we are accountable for what these characters do.
There are those who say it would be cheaper to just pay off Wilcox and fellow Supervisor Don Stapley rather than fighting their lawsuits against us. Indeed, it would be less expensive, if mere money is the only cost to be calculated.
But the thing is, it’s not. As proof, I offer two words:
Ray Krone.
Krone was a postal worker who was twice convicted in the brutal 1991 rape and murder of a Phoenix bartender. This guy, who had no previous criminal record, spent a decade in prison, including two years and eight months on death row.
Krone was convicted principally because forensic experts hired by the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office testified that his teeth matched bite marks on the bartender’s breast and throat. Ten years after the murder, Krone was cleared when DNA tests identified the real killer, a convicted child molester who lived a few hundred yards from where the victim’s body was found.
Krone missed a decade of his life. While in prison, he was stabbed, his arm was broken and he contracted hepatitis C.
Compare his pain and his suffering to the agonies experienced by Mary Rose Wilcox.
In December 2009, she was indicted on 42 counts, stemming from allegations that she voted to grant funds to Chicanos Por La Causa while obtaining loans from one of the non profit’s subsidiaries.
In February 2010, Pima County Superior Court Judge John Leonardo dismissed the indictment, saying that Thomas had a conflict and brought the charges as political retaliation. But the judge also noted that he never considered the merits of the case against Wilcox.
In her lawsuit against us, Wilcox and her husband Earl claim their constitutional rights were violated and their reputations were damaged. Their emotions were shattered and their restaurant failed – not, apparently, because of the worst economy in most of our lifetimes but because she was a victim.
Meanwhile, Wilcox lost her Golden Rule in Government Award, an honor withdrawn by the Arizona InterFaith Movement after she was indicted.
“This news devastated Mary Rose,” her lawsuit says.
So let’s compare, shall we?
Krone: 10 years in prison, including nearly three on death row. A broken bone, a stab wound, a disease and the loss of his freedom during the prime of his life.
In 2005, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to give Krone $1.4 million to settle his claims against the county. (He later got another $3 million from Phoenix for its shoddy investigation.)
Wilcox: three months under indictment, a short-lived civil racketeering lawsuit, the demise of her restaurant and the loss of her Golden Rule Government Award. For that, retiring County Manager David Smith is recommending that we hand over $975,000.
Who knew her suffering was so like that of an innocent man locked away and condemned to die?
It’ll take one of Wilcox’s colleagues to approve her payout, assuming County Treasurer Hos Hoskins goes along with the deal.
It won’t be Stapley. He, too, has his hand out. Supervisors Max Wilson and Andy Kunasek are both running for re-election. They’re certainly not approving the Wilcox windfall.
That leaves Supervisor Fulton Brock, who is retiring this year in the wake of a family scandal and questions about his role in that weirdness. Brock didn’t return a call to explain how Wilcox could possibly claim anything close to the sort of damages suffered by Krone.
Possibly because it’s inexplicable.
Both Wilcox and Stapley should be reimbursed for their verifiable legal expenses. But to hand over a million dollars to a colleague, one of the politicians who runs the place -- with another lining up for his own bonanza?
What was that Thomas was saying about county corruption again?
If Wilcox thinks she has a case against her constituents and taxpayers countywide, then she should go to court and prove it.
If it ultimately costs us more than $975,000, well then maybe that’s the price of proving Andy Thomas wrong.
(Column published April 24, 2012, The Arizona Republic)
Mary Rose Wilcox screws taxpayers out of $1 million???
SourceWilcox awarded $975K in lawsuit against county
by Michael Kiefer and Michelle Ye Hee Lee - May. 11, 2012 10:05 PM
The Republic | azcentral.com
A U.S. district judge on Friday awarded $975,000 to Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox to settle her claim against Sheriff Joe Arpaio and former County Attorney Andrew Thomas -- and, by extension, against the county itself.
Judge Neil Wake also awarded attorneys fees to Wilcox.
"My family and I have just been through such an agonizing time," Wilcox said. "I will rededicate myself to being the best county supervisor I can be. ... In my case, the justice system really did come through."
In 2010, the county Board of Supervisors approved a resolution to avoid conflicts of interest in resolving supervisors' potential legal claims against the county stemming from actions taken by Arpaio and Thomas. The resolution gave authority to former County Manager David Smith to offer and negotiate settlements in those cases. Ultimately, 10 lawsuits were filed by county officials, employees and retired judges.
Under that authority, Smith settled five of those cases for amounts ranging from $75,000 to $500,000. Four plaintiffs remain in the lawsuit.
A countersuit filed by Thomas was withdrawn, and another filed by former Deputy County Attorney Lisa Aubuchon and former sheriff's Chief Deputy David Hendershott has been thrown out as baseless.
On April 9, Colin Campbell, Wilcox's attorney, reached an agreement with retired Judge Christopher Skelly, who was working as a mediator for the county, to settle Wilcox's claim for $975,000. Smith tentatively approved the amount and noted that it might be subject to further approvals.
But the county disputed whether Smith had the authority to settle with an elected official. County Attorney Bill Montgomery issued a formal legal opinion that state statute required one county supervisor and the county treasurer to sign off on claims made bycounty supervisors against the county.
Campbell disagreed, and he filed a motion asking the court to enforce the settlement.
Smith testified that he believed he had authority to settle the legal claims and that he believed he had settled with Wilcox. Neither Skelly nor any of the non-conflicted supervisors were there to say otherwise.
The county's lawyer, Steve LaMar, conceded that Montgomery's opinion on who needed to sign off on the settlement was invalid.
"This decision is yours," LaMar told Wake.
Campbell said he was "very pleased" with Wake's decision.
"With respect to Mary Rose, this ends all litigation," he said. "And I'm sure they'll be very happy to move on with their lives."
Supervisor Andy Kunasek said he would have preferred the Wilcox case to go to trial.
"I've always felt the board's claims were different than other claims, even prior to the county attorney's opinion," Kunasek said. "My position has always been, for the elected officials, that they need to take it through another process."
Campbell said he will ask the county to pay for his fees from the time of settlement until now.
County to decide Thursday on appealing Wilcox windfall
SourceCounty to decide Thursday on appealing Wilcox windfall
Take a bow, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.
You, Max Wilson and Andy Kunasek and Fulton Brock.
Special accolades to Mary Rose Wilcox for a job exceedingly well done. Oh, it won’t rate the coveted Golden Rule in Government Award. I think we can rule that one out, based upon her decision to trample the “do unto others” clause on her march to nearly a million dollars – of our money, that is.
But overall, applause all around. Hands down the best political botch job I have seen this year and given that this is Arizona, that is saying something.
In the end Wilcox got her money, Wilson, Kunasek and Brock got caught with their pants down and taxpayers? We got played.
As usual.
U.S. District Court Judge Neil Wake on Friday ruled that we owe Wilcox $975,000 – plus whatever the cost of her legal fees for having to return to court to pry loose her bonanza.
On Monday, the supervisors were busy tugging on their Sansabelts, pondering how they got outmaneuvered and whether to appeal.
“I still think it requires a board member to sign off on it,” Kunasek said.
This particular piece of political theater began in December 2009 when Wilcox was charged with 42 criminal counts, stemming from allegations that she voted to grant public funds to Chicanos Por La Causa while obtaining loans from one of its subsidiaries. Three months later, a Pima County judge dismissed the charges, citing prosecutorial misconduct, but noted that he never considered the merits of the case against Wilcox.
Cue the pain, the suffering and the inevitable lawsuit against us.
Wilcox claimed that she suffered terribly, losing not only her restaurant but her Golden Rule in Government Award, an honor withdrawn by the Arizona InterFaith Movement after she was indicted. She joined fellow Supervisor Don Stapley and seven others in filing $46 million worth of claims against us for mistreatment at the hands of Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
In June 2010, the supervisors – the three who weren’t preparing to sue us – authorized County Manager David Smith to settle the claims. In February, Smith talked about paying only their legal fees.
Then suddenly last month, as one of his last acts before retiring, he began doling out big money: $500,000 to retired Judge Barbara Mundell and Stapley’s secretary, Susan Schuerman -- amounts that were negotiated by the $475-an-hour retired judge who was hired to mediate. Then, the shocker: he offered Wilcox $975,000.
“David Smith was leaving and he didn’t care if he angered the board,” Scott Isham, Wilson’s chief of staff told me on Monday. “This was an f-you out the door.”
Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery advised that the Wilcox windfall would have to be approved by one of her colleagues and the county treasurer. When Kunasek, Wilson and Brock refused, Wilcox headed to federal court, hoping to convince Wake that she didn’t need anyone’s approval to cash in on her pain and suffering.
On Friday, Wake agreed with her.
It was almost hard not to given the anemic defense put on by Steve LaMar, the attorney hired to defend the county. He acted as if he’d never heard of Montgomery’s legal opinion, which, in any case, the judge said “clearly doesn’t apply.”
And LaMar’s argument – that any outlay over $200,000 needed board approval – fell apart when Smith testified that $500,000 checks had already been cut to Mundell and Schuerman.
Bottom line: Wake found that the supervisors long ago handed Smith a blank check to settle the claims as he saw fit.
Kunasek told me on Monday that he always believed that Wilcox’s settlement would have to be approved by at least one board member.
“If I want to get reimbursed for cab fare I need to have another board member sign off on it,” he said.
Both he and Wilson signed affidavits noting that they advised Smith that any Wilcox settlement would be subject to board approval. They just didn’t show up in court Friday to defend that point of view – a fact duly noted by the judge. Meanwhile Smith was there to testify that he doesn’t recall ever being told any such thing.
“My authority was to settle claims and acting within that authority, that’s what I did,” he said.
It took Wake about two seconds to order us to show Mary Rose the money and an elated Wilcox proclaimed that justice prevailed.
“I will rededicate myself to being the best county supervisor I can be,” she told a reporter a few minutes after Wake's ruling.
Of course, the best county supervisor she could be would be one who declines to take money from the people who for decades have been electing her.
Yeah, that’ll happen.
It's wrong to punish taxpayers
Source
It's wrong to punish taxpayers
May. 15, 2012 12:00 AM
The Republic | azcentral.com
It appears that Mary Rose Wilcox got her $975,000 from Maricopa County taxpayers after all.
But appearances can be misleading. This deal may not be done just yet.
On Friday, a U.S. district judge ordered that county taxpayers must pay the elected supervisor the $975,000 settlement that former County Manager David Smith agreed to pay her in April. Offer made, offer accepted, deal done, as the lawyers say.
The settlement represents the county's liability for the pain and suffering that Wilcox endured during the legal wars between the supervisors and county court administrators on one side and former County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Sheriff Joe Arpaio on the other.
Judge Neil Wake ordered county taxpayers to pony up for Wilcox's lawyer fees, too.
At the same time, the judge rejected County Attorney Bill Montgomery's formal opinion on the payment issue.
Montgomery had concluded that the county treasurer and at least one other supervisor would have to approve the payment to Wilcox before it could be authorized. But the attorney representing the county at Friday's hearing, Steve LaMar, told Wake that he agreed with Wake's ruling that Montgomery's opinion was invalid.
"This decision is yours to make," LaMar, a private attorney hired to represent the county, said to the judge.
This is news to Montgomery, however, who on Monday reiterated his belief that a board member who was not a claimant for damages must sign off on any settlement paid to another board member.
"There may be a review of the court's findings," said Montgomery, who added that the board may ask him to do just that. As far as the county attorney is concerned, his opinion about the supervisory sign-off requirement "is still operative."
We previously have expressed our dismay with these financial settlements. We have no doubt that these high-ranking county officials suffered from actions of Thomas and Arpaio, who grievously abused their police powers over the course of several tough years.
But they have no business punishing taxpayers in return.
But it gets worse. Independent prosecutors have found credible evidence that investigations of the two people who stand to rake in the biggest settlement paydays -- Wilcox and Supervisor Don Stapley -- were warranted. Those legitimate investigations, alas, were buried under the weight of Arpaio and Thomas' crazy political witch hunts.
It is one thing for lower-level county personnel to file claims. They, indeed, "did not sign up" for the bare-knuckle brawls among the politicos.
But the cases of Wilcox, Stapley and former Maricopa County Superior Court Presiding Judge Barbara Mundell should have been treated differently. These were people in leadership positions. Leaders don't file suit against the people who put them in office and who pay their salaries.
The position expressed by Supervisor Andy Kunasek is the correct one: The cases involving the supervisors, at least, should have gone to trial.
County treasurer: Do I need to stop Wilcox payment?
Source
County treasurer: Do I need to stop Wilcox payment?
Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Windfall may not want to go making plans just yet for a spending spree, given her court-ordered, taxpayer-supplied bonanza.
County Treasurer Charles “Hos” Hoskins is considering whether he needs to head to court to stop the county from cutting a check to Wilcox.
U.S. District Court Judge Neil Wake on Friday ordered the county (read: us) to pay Mary Rose Wilcox $975,000 for her pain. Now Hoskins is wondering whether he’ll be inviting a bit of the same – pain, that is – if he allows taxpayer money out the door without first verifying and approving her claim.
“The law requires me to approve all claims by the supervisors,” Hoskins told me on Tuesday. “I have not been given that opportunity. If I don’t seek that opportunity, would I be remiss in my duties and incur some sort of personal liability?”
Cut to Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery: “My interpretation is he could be.”
It’s the latest twist in a tale that’s twisted to begin with, when elected leaders look to taxpayers for a payday. When an elected board hands a blank check to the county’s top bureaucrat to make lawsuits go away. When the private attorney hired to represent the county doesn’t even know the county’s legal position on what must happen before Wilcox can land her windfall.
Wilcox went to court last week, after it became clear that none of her colleagues were going to hand over $975,000 for her suffering at the hands of then-County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
At issue is ARS 11-626, which says simply this: “A claim against the county presented by a member of the board of supervisors shall be verified as other claims, and shall bear the written approval of at least one member of the board other than the claimant, and of the county treasurer.”
Judge Wake said that the law doesn’t apply, though he didn’t say why and Steve LaMar, the attorney representing the county, didn’t argue the point. Didn’t, in fact, appear to even know that Montgomery had issued a legal opinion, saying that it did apply.
Wilcox’s attorneys say that law is aimed at expense accounts and mileage reimbursements, not settlement of legal claims. They contend that then-County Manager David Smith had full authority to approve the settlement of Wilcox’s legal claim before his reitrement last month –authority given him by the Board of Supervisors (minus Wilcox and Don Stapley) in 2010.
Montgomery, however, says that not even the supervisors can vote away the law. And the law requires one supervisor and the treasurer to sign off on any claim submitted by another supervisor.
“The only hurdle for the Wilcox matter was and is 11-626 and the same thing goes for any resolution of Supervisor Stapley’s case,” he said.
The board on Thursday will meet privately to consider whether to appeal Wake’s ruling.
Montgomery says an appeal is a bad idea, given that LaMar didn’t argue that ARS 11-626 applies. A better option would be to ask the judge to reconsider and fully brief him on the county’s position. Or, he says, the county could simply require the signoff anyway and see what happens.
Assuming the supervisors stand pat on their decisions not to approve the settlement, that’ll amount to defying the judge’s order. Having watched this judge in action, I wouldn’t recommend that one.
Still, it does leave Hoskins in a quandary. Montgomery is supplying an attorney to advise him on whether he’s at risk if he allows a check out the door without his approval. And if he is at risk, what to do about it.
If the Wilcox settlement does come to him for his approval, the law says he first must verify the expense.
“I will be very interested in seeing the supporting documentation that accompanies the claim,” he said.
Wouldn’t we all?
There is, of course, a simple way out of this tar pit. One would require a demonstration of leadership, of stewardship, of statesmanship, the sort of qualities befitting anyone who has amassed a long record of public service.
Submit your legal bills, Mary Rose. Ask the county to reimburse you for reasonable legal fees and not one dime more. Thomas and Arpaio didn’t ruin your reputation.
But you just might.
Maricopa County treasurer seeks to block Wilcox settlement
SourceMaricopa County treasurer seeks to block Wilcox settlement
by Michael Kiefer and Michelle Ye Hee Lee - May. 18, 2012 11:09 PM
The Republic | azcentral.com
Maricopa County will ask a federal judge to reconsider his order to award $975,000 to Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox as settlement for her lawsuit against Sheriff Joe Arpaio, former County Attorney Andrew Thomas and the county.
County Treasurer Charles "Hos" Hoskins also has asked to intervene in the case to question whether the judge's order sidesteps Hoskins' statutory duty to sign off on county expenses.
Wilcox sued the county over claims she had been victimized by Arpaio and Thomas in their so-called corruption investigations between 2008 and 2010. Wilcox was indicted, but a Superior Court judge threw out the charges and ruled that they had been filed for political reasons.
In early April, Wilcox's attorney, Colin Campbell reached a tentative settlement with then-County Manager David Smith. Smith, who is now retired, had worked through a mediator and claimed that a county resolution gave him full authority to settle the lawsuits that came out of the Arpaio-Thomas prosecutions.
But County Attorney Bill Montgomery opined that under Arizona Revised Statute 11-626, one supervisor and the county treasurer had to approve the claims. When the three county supervisors who did not have conflicts of interest in the matter balked at signing, Wilcox's attorney took the issue directly to U.S. District Court Judge Neil Wake, the judge assigned to various county lawsuits.
At a hearing May 11, Steven LaMar, a private attorney representing the county in the federal case, waived discussion of the state statute, saying it did not apply. Wake ruled in favor of Wilcox, and granted attorneys' fees of $28,311 to Campbell.
Hoskins filed his motion to intervene Friday.
"The statute 11-626 requires the treasurer approve claims filed by a supervisor," he said. "I was not afforded an opportunity to do that. So I figured that I should take action to uphold the law.... In order to do that, I had to file action in court."
Hoskins called Montgomery earlier this week and asked, "If I just sit on my hands and don't take any action, would I be remiss in my duties per my oath of office?" Montgomery replied, "Yes, you could be."
When asked what he hopes to get out of taking action, Hoskins answered, "Clarity."
Supervisors Andy Kunasek, Max Wilson and Fulton Brock met privately with representatives of the County Attorney's Office Thursday to discuss how to proceed, and apparently took LaMar off the case. Wilcox and Supervisor Don Stapley were conflicted out of the discussion because they are parties to suitsagainst the sheriff and Thomas.
In an e-mail, Montgomery wrote, "At the direction of the board, new counsel will be substituted and instructed to file a motion to reconsider in order to ensure that additional information is presented to the court before any order becomes final."
Campbell noted that the county had not argued the merits of ARS 11-626 during last week's hearing.
"Now that they've lost, they suddenly want to change horses?" he asked. "It's disingenuous."
Maricopa County appealing Wilcox Windfall
SourceMaricopa County appealing Wilcox Windfall
Memo from the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors to Supervisor Mary Rose Windfall:
Don’t be counting those chickens just yet.
Wilcox’s colleagues – that is, the three who haven’t sued taxpayers -- voted 3-0 last week to appeal a federal judge’s ruling, ordering the county to pay Wilcox $1 million.
This, to cover her pain, her suffering and her legal bills, including the money spent on lawyers to haul us into court.
Unless you’ve been living under a rock (which is, after all, not a bad place to be given the bombs that so regularly burst around here), you know the saga of Maricopa County’s second biggest victim: Mary Rose Wilcox.
How she, fellow Supervisor/Victim No. 1 Don Stapley and others were targeted by an out-of-control sheriff and prosecutor, sued for civil racketeering and criminally charged with public corruption.
How within weeks, the cases fell apart. In the end, Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s chief deputy, Dave Hendershott, saw his career reduced to ashes and ex-Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas and his sidekick, Lisa Aubuchon, were disbarred.
“Justice has finally been served for Maricopa County,” a glowing Wilcox proclaimed on that April day when the disbarment orders came down.
Justice served, it was now time for jackpots. A million-dollar jackpot, in Wilcox’s case, payable by you-know-who.
In February, Maricopa County Manager David Smith – the guy assigned to try to settle lawsuits filed by public officials, judges and others caught up in the county wars – was talking about paying only their legal fees.
By April, in his final acts before retiring, Smith began doling out big money: $500,000 to retired Judge Barbara Mundell and Stapley’s secretary, Susan Schuerman.
And $975,000 to Wilcox.
I suspect Stapley would have been next, but for the shocked reaction of the public, and thus of public officials.
The county paid Mundell and Schuerman but balked at the Wilcox windfall, contending that a supervisor and the county treasurer would have to approve the payment, given that she’s one of the people who runs the place.
So Wilcox went to court and asked U.S. District Court Judge Neil Wake to order the county to pony up. And he did, boosting the bill to a little over $1 million to cover yet another $28,000 – Wilcox’s April and May lawyer bills.
In his 19-page ruling, Wake rejected every one of the county’s arguments against paying Wilcox, noting that the supervisors in 2010 gave Smith a blank check to settle the cases.
Just don’t look for the county to pay up anytime soon. Especially not in this, an election year.
Treasurer Charles “Hos” Hoskins has filed a motion to intervene, hoping to revisit the issue of whether Smith had authority to hand Wilcox a fat check.
Meanwhile, the Board of Supervisors on Wednesday voted to appeal Wake’s ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery says the judge improperly considered testimony from Smith and confidential e-mails -- information that should have remained private under the state law governing mediation.
Montgomery says Wake’s ruling, if it stands, could affect future decisions to mediate disputes if concessions are later subject to public disclosure
The judge, in his order, said the testimony and documents fell outside the “mediation privilege.” And so off to San Francisco we go – a pricey but necessary move, given the court of public opinion about what happened here.
Both Montgomery and Supervisor Andy Kunasek say (and I agree) that the county should pay Wilcox’s and Stapley’s legitimate legal fees and expenses.
“Anything beyond that, no,” Kunasek said. “All the pain and suffering and all those things, although I think they are very real having experienced them myself, for the public’s confidence, we can’t just be voting, agreeing to pay each other, which is essentially what this is.”
Wilcox didn’t return a call asking her to explain why we owe her a million dollars. I suspect the answer would have something to do with teaching a lesson to voters who elect scoundrels for county leaders.
Oh, we’re learning a lesson, all right.
Wilcox has long contended that both her business and her reputation were damaged as a result of the politically motivated investigations. But her restaurant closed in 2010, during the worst economy most of us have ever seen, and as for her reputation?
In this, her sixth bid for re-election, she’s running unopposed.
xxx
Source
xxx
Source
xxx
Source
xxx
Source